Eh, that was actually pretty forgivable. If you do a lot of public reading or reciting you're going get things garbled on occasion when you try to do something else at the same time. Ask basically anyone that's ever been in a stage play, mixing together two sets of lines that are adjacent but don't actually go together is very common.

darwinpolice:Any Pie Left: For some reason, very few news drones I've seen on TV know how to talk to Bill. They all kind of seem to blank out at his nerd clothes and just get derpy.

I've noticed that. Nye gets more dumbass questions than anyone else for some reason, and I don't really get it. He's a really bright guy and he's very good at what he does, but he's not some intimidating expert in an obscure field. I don't know what it is that inspires the extra-hard derping.

It has to be the bow-tie. It must disarm people enough to check their common sense at the door.

Ishkur:So it'll miss us by about a million miles. Roughly 4x the distance to the moon. We've had lots of close calls before. As it turns out, space is so big that it is actually hard for anything to hit anything else.

No. Something is wrong with your math, because look at any other source and you'll see that it will approach within about 17,000 miles. As in, closer than our geostationary satellites and only 7% of the distance from Earth to the Moon.

Nye was on MSNBC and fielded a question about why the NE blizzard tracked so similarly to superstorm Sandy. He completely, utterly flubbed it, to the point where I'm really doubting if he knows anything at all about atmospheric science.

We know you already acknowledge the problem inherent in making inferences from such a short period of time relative to short-term variability, so we might as well skip ahead:

SevenizGud:Damnhippyfreak: [socratic] Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes? [/socratic] Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.

So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation. I urge you once again to stand by your own words instead of hiding from them like a dishonest coward. Every time you ignore the fact that you are already aware of the problem with what you post, you're proving yourself to be more of a liar, and a coward, if not an irrational zealot.

Cue the derptards to come in and tell us that in spite of 12 years of declining temperatures, the long-term trend is still positive, and temperature is CERTAIN to rise...you just watch...and trust us.

Ok, look, you see the format of your graph? We don't even have to dig into the sources to know it's crap. People who care about data know how to put this stuff together, and this person clearly didn't.

Doesn't global warming reduce the density of the thermosphere and exosphere? If there was an extremely close pass (but more than 500km) by a near-earth object, whose trajectory might have been altered by interfacing with the outermost atmosphere, then air density variables could affect the outcome. Global warming could be a factor in an asteroid's subsequent orbits.

GeneralJim: vygramul: GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid? Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it? That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid.

Wow. Thanks for proving that so quickly.

That wasn't a proof. Which explains your trouble.

True -- the technical term is "example." Which explains YOUR little problem.

So therefore AGW is not happening and Sarah Palin is automatically President.

Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

GeneralJim:vygramul:GeneralJim: vygramul: GeneralJim: FloydA: Do you know why so many people think that the "skeptics" of climate change are stupid? Ignorance of science and inability to recognize a scam when they see it? That would, indeed, be why people think "skeptics" are stupid. Wow. Thanks for proving that so quickly.That wasn't a proof. Which explains your trouble.True -- the technical term is "example." Which explains YOUR little problem.

I see. I get it right, you get it wrong, and you conclude I have the problem. Given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", you will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if you buy kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love you any more." This you call "using science". Every thinking person calls it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.

So therefore AGW is not happening and Sarah Palin is automatically President. Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

I see. I get it right, you get it wrong, and you conclude I have the problem. Given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", you will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if you buy kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love you any more." This you call "using science". Every thinking person calls it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.

Oh, I gets it. Youse is one o them 'tards what peer-reviews his jokes. Have fun with that. And you're irritated? So, you have EMOTIONAL problems, too. Gee, sorry to hear that.

Like all good Washington Post-ers, Jason Samenow the paper's Chief Meteorologist was watching MSNBC on Saturday and happened upon guest Bill Nye-The Science Guy explaining all about the recent east coast blizzard. Apparently Nye got almost everything wrong and Mr. Samenow's review was

To educate viewers on the science of the recent mega-blizzard that socked New England, MSNBC's Craig Melvin brought onto his program noted "science guy" Bill Nye .What followed was the one of the most flawed discussions of meteorology I've ever seen on a national network. In likening the blizzard and hurricane Sandy, Nye implies both storms originated off the coast from Africa, which is wrong.Sandy formed in the Caribbean (not from an African wave) and the blizzard formed off the Mid-Atlantic coast (from the merger of two North American disturbances). Nye then draws an absurd comparison between East Coast storms and West Coast storms in an attempt to equate them. "If you live on the West Coast ... that same type of storm is called a Sou'wester," Nye says. "If you go to the sailboat store you can get a Nor'easter hat in New England but it's a Sou'wester hat in Seattle."Big problem: storms typically hit Seattle from the west not from the south. They don't form off the Pacific coast of Los Angeles or San Francisco and charge northward. In my entire life, coontil watching Nye's comments) I had never heard the term "Sou'wester" used in reference to a West Coast storm (a google search reveals there is an apartment complex and a lodge with such a name in the region - but I couldn't find a meteorological reference).There is a good meteorological reason for the lack of "Sou'westers": Whereas the warm Gulf Stream current creates a zone of temperature contrast that allows storms to form along the East Coast and move northward, there's no equivalent current in the Pacific to steer storms up the West Coast. I challenge a reader to find a "Sou'wester hat" for sale... Nye then makes a convoluted comment about spin in different parts of the storm that serves as a non-sensical transition into a discussion of climate change.

GeneralJim:vygramul: I see. I get it right, you get it wrong, and you conclude I have the problem. Given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", you will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if you buy kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love you any more." This you call "using science". Every thinking person calls it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.Oh, I gets it. Youse is one o them 'tards what peer-reviews his jokes. Have fun with that. And you're irritated? So, you have EMOTIONAL problems, too. Gee, sorry to hear that.

GeneralJim:Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

Yep, I could -- and I have, when explaining to Monkey Boy how his idea of ... you know, I don't remember exactly HOW he screwed it up, but it was pretty funny, what with him and all of his copypasta from the skepticalscience blog. I think I remember that he said it would insulate, and keep heat in the lower atmosphere so it wouldn't bleed off into space... Anyway, as part of explaining why he had it wrong, I went through the whole thing. You can Google it if you want to learn how it works.

GeneralJim:vygramul: I'm sure you can tell us exactly WHY CO2 is a greenhouse gas.Yep, I could -- and I have, when explaining to Monkey Boy how his idea of ... you know, I don't remember exactly HOW he screwed it up, but it was pretty funny, what with him and all of his copypasta from the skepticalscience blog. I think I remember that he said it would insulate, and keep heat in the lower atmosphere so it wouldn't bleed off into space... Anyway, as part of explaining why he had it wrong, I went through the whole thing. You can Google it if you want to learn how it works.

No thanks, I already know how it works and don't need to read the wrong answer you provided.

GeneralJim: Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

You know how I can tell you didn't read the entire WUWT post?

You know how I know you're full of shiat? I did read it. And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV, like glass is? Really? Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

GeneralJim:Ishkur: GeneralJim: Gee, do you really think that? That's not very bright. You had to go full retard, didn't you? It's just good to know, before one gets in line to suck his crank, that he can design a stupid, crap, and impossible experiment, and then fake the results when it doesn't work. Ironically, his idea (or maybe it was Gore's... in which case Nye should have biatch-slapped Gore and designed a better one) fails through a basic lack of understanding of how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere.

You know how I can tell you didn't read the entire WUWT post?You know how I know you're full of shiat? I did read it. And, you're saying the atmosphere is opaque to UV, like glass is? Really? Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Heh. You're proving Ishkur right here. Part of the problem that Watts describes was the the lamps were infrared, not UV (or visible light). In addition, contrary to your claim, glass (unless it's specifically coated) is relatively transparent to UV. The experiment in question is the kind of simple one done in 1st year physical geography labs or even at a high-school level, and it works, if done properly.

GeneralJim:vygramul: No thanks, I already know how it works and don't need to read the wrong answer you provided.Well, then, I'm sure you wouldn't mind correcting it, and pointing out what I said wrong....

If you want your work checked, you have to bring it to me, not ask me to go hunt it down for you.

That makes more sense. Now with that out of the way, the atmosphere is largely opaque to IR, with the exception of certain wavelengths (window bands). Keep in mind that air in a jar doesn't have all the components that make up the atmosphere in situ.

Sounds like the weathergirl was fed a segue for another story and had to link it back to what they were originally talking about. Granted, she's still as dumb as a screen door on a submarine, but there is an explanation for that.

What there ISN'T an explanation for is how Bill Nye keeps his cool and hasn't embarked on a Lewis Black style rant on these raving loons and mouthbreathers who think that a virgin getting knocked up with a spectral baby isn't a myth but that global warming is. My guess: some REALLY good drugs.

TheMysteriousStranger:I notice that the video does not have Nye's reply which I am sure was "no." Nye being head of the Planetary Society and well-informed on climate change.

---------

Of course the deniers will wonder why it still snows if the world is 0.7 degrees warmer. The warming is not enough prevent precipitation coming down as snow rather than rain. But the whole word being, on average, 0.7 degrees warmer day in day out will result in more evaporation which will eventually come down as precipitation. It will also shift weather patterns.